Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.

You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.

In my (albeit limited) experience, it is a mistake to compare the features of product A (out of the box) to product B (with lots of community-built extensions/addons).

The more addons/extensions you use, the harder it is to maintain, and in general the more likely you are to have problems and strange interactions, and trouble upgrading.

That's not to say you shouldn't use extensions/addons, but it is to say that you should prefer a system whose CORE is closest to your needs, and that relying on a large number of extensions to get the functionality you want is never as simple as it seems.

Quote from: bscott

When I get up to speed with Django however I am sure it will become my preferred choice over Drupal.

im looking into the same transition at the moment and have much of the same feelings as you. I have done work with Drupal hoping to use it as a "framework" because of the very excellent developer-friendly approach to coding and good documentation, but just found Drupal too alien and too large a CMS to work well as a general framework. From the perspective of building general purpose website applications, Django looks promising. However, deployment of Python sites is much trickier than PHP, and there is a lot about Django i don't love. Haven't found a better framework yet though (pylons looks interesting but a bit chaotic).

In my (albeit limited) experience, it is a mistake to compare the features of product A (out of the box) to product B (with lots of community-built extensions/addons).

The more addons/extensions you use, the harder it is to maintain, and in general the more likely you are to have problems and strange interactions, and trouble upgrading.

That's not to say you shouldn't use extensions/addons, but it is to say that you should prefer a system whose CORE is closest to your needs, and that relying on a large number of extensions to get the functionality you want is never as simple as it seems.

+1 - I've been burned very badly by modules in the past, and always try to stick to using as few as possible, and often with a view to an "exit strategy" from them if needed.

"Magic Gadget" was one of the best modules ever made for DNN. Then the developer dropped off the face of the earth. That blew. I was f**ked unbelievably hard as I'd relied on it completely. I talked a bit about it here:

Wordpress is a "CMS" in the same sense that SMF (the system this forum uses) is a "CMS". It manages "content", yes. But it's not what most people think of when they think of "CMS". It's not a general-purpose system that's actually *made for* making average, non-blog websites. Wordpress was made for and is still best for *blog* sites. If you have no intention of doing blog-style content, or if blog-style content is not the *core* of your site, then Wordpress is in my opinion not the best solution. You'll be working against the system and/or with lots of hacks and addons to get it to do normal stuff that works out of the box with other more generalized CMS platforms. That being said other CMS systems don't give you blog functionality that is as nice and complete and easy to use, in most cases. So again if blog-type content (not even necessarily a real "blog" per se, but sequentially posted blog-roll style content/articles) is your goal, then Wordpress may still be best. For all else, set it aside.- Oshyan

But these are not the words you would hear, for the most part anyway.The CMS aspect is so much the buzz there that a recent thread (http://wordpress.org/supp...d-2011-hold-for-wordpress) on the WordPress forums where Jane Wells (one of the WP leads) asked about feedback is full of suggestions that relate to CMS. Not only they pretty prominently showcase CMS sites (http://wordpress.org/showcase/) but the users, the type who would look to give feedback, are into it and asking for it.

That's because people start small or blog-oriented sites with Wordpress because it's easy to use and then later want to do more with it but don't want to leave their familiarity with WP behind. So the demand for addons that make WP more like a full-blown CMS is high. That doesn't make WP a good CMS to start a *new* site with by any means though. I see that this may be a direction WP wants to go in the future, but I think it would take some very significant work to do it well. Part of the magic of WP's simplicity and ease of use is in its focus on a smaller set of features. If WP could do everything Joomla could do, well, it would be more complicated. If they do go down the road of trying to turn it into a more general CMS, I think they might be better served doing it as a new core and adapting the original WP to be an addon or integrated with it, but keep the UI approach and usability model. Maybe make a "Site Press" with "Word Press" component.

That's because people start small or blog-oriented sites with Wordpress because it's easy to use and then later want to do more with it but don't want to leave their familiarity with WP behind. So the demand for addons that make WP more like a full-blown CMS is high. That doesn't make WP a good CMS to start a *new* site with by any means though. I see that this may be a direction WP wants to go in the future, but I think it would take some very significant work to do it well. Part of the magic of WP's simplicity and ease of use is in its focus on a smaller set of features. If WP could do everything Joomla could do, well, it would be more complicated. If they do go down the road of trying to turn it into a more general CMS, I think they might be better served doing it as a new core and adapting the original WP to be an addon or integrated with it, but keep the UI approach and usability model. Maybe make a "Site Press" with "Word Press" component.

- Oshyan

All true.

Depending on third party addons is risky unless you have 'in house' expertise.

I just don't see why they need to exclude all non-GPL (compatible) software like that. It does nothing to preserve "freedom". SMF isn't a part of Joomla, and Joomla isn't a part of SMF, so why the need to refuse to let them work together? They're scripts. Meh... I just don't care.

I forget where else I read, but WordPress has the same strict view for themes even. That just seems extreme to me.

What next? Linux declares all programs running on it must be GPL... All content on all GPL sites must be GPL? Microsoft bans GPL software on Windows? Apple bans all non-Apple software on everything?

I actually want to expand this site, so I don't want to get screwed by licensing. Their interpretation of the GPL is just too radical.

I just don't see why they need to exclude all non-GPL (compatible) software like that. It does nothing to preserve "freedom".

It does a lot to prevent other interests from exploiting a GPL product's installed base of users by piggy-backing on it's success without playing by the same rules.

It's also somewhat disingenuous to criticize GPL projects for asking that their rules be obeyed when you consider they are giving away valuable work in exchange for you respecting such rules.

People that don't like the terms of the GPL should feel free to go out and purchase whatever software they feel would suit their needs better, and conveniently disregard the fact that the EULAs on such products place even greater restrictions on the user than GPL ever would.

-----

Addendum: (minor point) Just because somebody does something you don't agree with (or understand) doesn't automatically make them an "asshole." And characterizing them as such doesn't add anything to either the tone, or the caliber, of the discussion. (Just my tuppence.)

One thing I find interesting is that the developers of the SMF Bridge, while not happy about what went down, still don't seem to have moral or philosophical problems with Joomla's decision on the matter. See below (emphasis added):

Quote

As a result of this change of direction, only GPL-licensed software can legally be distributed and used inside the Joomla! software. While we regret and are saddened by this development, we respect Joomla!'s position on their software license.

It's like a 5-year old kid asking to rewind and have a "do over". The GPL never had those meanings before. So why now? Why not issue a new license that DOES cover those cases?

I've got nothing against the GPL/FSF, but really --- let's have a "do over" because that's "not really what we meant"?

My snide comment about Linux and the GPL is perfectly in line with what they've done. If software that's written to run on Linux runs on Linux, and needs Linux to run, then shouldn't it be GPL as well? I see no difference at all between the two cases. "If you don't want your software to be GPL, don't write for Linux." That's what it sounds like. I'm not bashing Linux -- I'm just using it as an analogy there. They retroactively changed the license to mean something different.

It's just such an antagonistic stance/interpretation of the GPL.

As for the comments by Simple Machines... Well... You can't expect them to come out and call a spade a shovel because that's not PC.

Quote

People that don't like the terms of the GPL should feel free to go out and purchase whatever software they feel would suit their needs better, and conveniently disregard the fact that the EULAs on such products place even greater restrictions on the user than GPL ever would.

That's the thing -- the GPL doesn't give you all that much freedom in cases like this. I am interested in USING the software, and don't really care that much about tweaking it or playing with it or any of that. I also want to use another piece of software with it. The GPL stops me from doing that.

As a simple user, my concerns aren't really about the license -- I just want to get a job done. BSD or GPL or proprietary is irrelevant to the task at hand.

But in cases like this, proprietary licenses give you a lot more freedom. It's just a different kind of freedom.

As far as I know there's nothing retroactive about it, it's just a stricter *interpretation* and/or enforcement of the license. The GPL license always had some clauses in it that were potentially contentious and made co-existing with closed-source projects tenuous. The Joomla project people decided that the benefits of being truly GPL compliant outweighed the risks and they went for better enforcement. So far the results are ok, though closer to the time of the "great purge" it was pretty painful seeing some of the better and more useful modules go away or at least be taken out of the extension directory (the SMF bridge being one of them).

All that being said, SMF was never native to Joomla, and a bridge is a bridge is a bridge, so I don't really understand your lament here; if the SMF bridge would have met your needs, why not JFusion? If anything Jfusion is better than your average bridge because it can bridge to multiple systems at once, thus if you ever find yourself wanting to link with not just SMF but also Magento or Moodle or other supported systems, then you don't need to add yet another bridge, you just enable that link in the already installed Jfusion. And in fact because it's a bigger system that supports multiple other systems it's likely to stick around for longer as interest is pooled from multiple cross-communities.

Another point is, if you're ok with a "less than SMF level functionality" forum, why not Kunena? It's very well integrated into Joomla, and actually its functionality is in many regards nearly comparable with SMF (possibly more so than the native DNN forum solution?).

I'm skittish about things. I don't want to start using something, then 2 years later when I'm seriously invested in it, get screwed by seeing something gone. SMF has been around for a long time, so I'm confident that it will be around in the future. Same with vBulletin.

Kunena? Dunno... It's not ready for Joomla 1.6, and I don't want to start using yesterdays problems (1.5) when tomorrow's problems (1.6) are much more fun~! Also, I really am not that familiar with them, so my trust level is low. Especially on a WIMP server. LAMP? Ok, maybe.

To be honest, I'd rather just buy software from a solid company than get GPL software for free. A profitable company will keep doing things to make money. Free software with no revenue model isn't really something that I can put much faith in, especially for something like a website where once you're committed, you're in all the way.

Desktop software is easy to swap out. Server software is pure Hell to swap out, if you can.

For JFusion... Just frustrated -- after reading more of the GPL infection stuff, I just figured that it's simply not worth it. If they decide to be strict, then it's screw-time again. They say they're compatible with stuff, but God only knows. A number of years ago the GPL was compatible with using different scripts together and now it's not. (Just make up your minds already...)

I was just really looking forward to using SMF. I saw it in the Joomla directory, got all excited that I'd be able to get SMF running... then went to the Simple Machines site to check on it. It was a real let-down.

From looking in the Joomla directory, there are no forums available that I would consider using.

Forum software is relatively complex, and can cause you no end of pain when it's buggy, and once you have it running, it needs to run because migrating to a new forum is excruciatingly, mind-numbingly painful.

DNN has minor issues that can be safely ignored, and I'm ok with that. Not happy with it, but ok with it.

1.6 just came out. Hardly any plugins are ready for it, so that's no surprise. Give it a couple months. If you want to do a site *now*, go with 1.5 (if you go with Joomla at all of course).

Commercial software is far from any guarantee of longevity. In fact in the commercial CMS market it may be just the opposite. Due to the amount of stiff competition from free/open source options, many commercial vendors have gone under or gone into "minimal life support" mode. Being commercial they also tend to have smaller communities and less community support (the flip side to having commercial support, of course). That often means less modules/plugins too. The leaders in their respective categories do tend to rise above these issues, vBulletin being one good example (although have you seen the vB back end? UGH!) in that it has a strong community and lots of mods. But that's also partly legacy from being around longer than most other options, free or otherwise. CMSs tend to be even more fragmented, and the "big boys" in that market are quite expensive, while the littler (and cheaper) ones are just not all that well supported outside the company.

Anyway, it sounds like you've made up your mind. Not the choice I'd make of course, but if you're happy with it, that's what matters.

DotNetNuke has a good model. It's free with a BSD license for the community edition, and a paid commercial edition. They've also got consulting services and a thriving market with free and paid for modules. It's only been growing, and seems to be doing very well.

But you are right about the CMS market being like that. I wouldn't go for Ektron. And it's one of the reasons why I wanted to take a shot at Joomla.

As for 1.5, I just can't put myself through upgrade hell again. Been there... Hated it... Still have the trauma, emotional scars and PTSD~! (Like I said -- skittish!)

If everything breaks from 1.5 to 1.6, then there's no way I'm going down that path.

Haven't found a better framework yet though (pylons looks interesting but a bit chaotic).

I originally intended to look at several of the Python offerings, creating a test site in each. I started with Django and was so taken with it I haven't moved on to any of the others. I really ought to stick to my original plan and to that end I am going to give Turbogears a test drive.

Now that we're on topic of choosing CMS, which one is good for multi-author magazine site ? (wordpress, MT,phpnuke excluded just to see scope of other CMS). What i want is ability to allow authors to post on magazine site, editors will approve the post and will go live. I have no plans of ads with this for now but soon will see about that. But i want to white-label (i.e. add magazine logo and the names) across all pages, so is there any multi-author cms to do this ?

Addendum: (minor point) Just because somebody does something you don't agree with (or understand) doesn't automatically make them an "asshole." And characterizing them as such doesn't add anything to either the tone, or the caliber, of the discussion. (Just my tuppence.)

Ok... I finally put my finger on it...

The GPL restrictions have to do with distribution. Plugins, themes, and whatnot are distributed independently, and not with the GPL'd software. As such, I have a difficult time seeing how the GPL applies to them. After all, it's not restricting anyone's freedom to use or distribute the GPL'd software or any bundled software. What it is restricting is HOW the GPL'd software is used. That's very far from freedom.

So while a bridge/forum/plugin/adding/module/whatever may use GPL'd software, it's not distributed with any GPL'd software. So I can't see how the GPL applies in those cases, like the SMF<>Joomla bridge software.

Their definition of "content" and how it's not affected by the GPL seems to me like a weak cop-out in the light of such a radical interpretation of the GPL (in order to make it not entirely useless). I'm really only seeing inconsistencies and silliness there.

Here's what I mean (as it's the same issue but easier to use as an analogy or discussion jump-point):

One sentence summary: PHP in WordPress themes must be GPL, artwork and CSS may be but are not required.

It seems reasonable, but I still have a bit of a hard time with it.

First, themes are not distributed with any GPL software. They have independent distribution.

So, if I write:

Quote

This is a WordPress call:wp_head();

The part "This is a WordPress call:" is GPL as well because it's part of a derivative work. Ooops. This entire post is. Ooops. This entire thread is. Ooops. This entire forum is. Ooops. This entire site is. Ooops. The entire Internet is. Ooops. The entire world is. Ooops... Since I read it, and that knowledge is a part of my being, and I'm now GPL'd myself~! My wife is gonna HATE that~!

I know that's entirely ridiculous.

What I mean is that it's a case of "we want to have our cake and eat it too." The distinction between PHP code vs. artwork and CSS are entirely arbitrary. The artwork and CSS rely on the PHP code, and I don't see how they can't be considered a derivative work in kind.

Quote

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

...snip...

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

The red section seems pretty clear. Themes seem to be independent as they are distributed independently.

The blue section is clear about "the whole", i.e. "each and every part", so I fail to see how artwork or CSS escapes that. "cake and eat it". The purple section is clear about "control the distribution". If the CSS and artwork are a part of the distribution of a theme, how is that they do not constitute "part of a whole" or "each and every part"? This genuinely confounds me.

In the purple section, the contentious part seems to be "based on". If something adds functionality to a GPL program, then it seems to be "based on" the program according to that interpretation. THIS is the problem. If someone writes software to extend a commercial platform, and releases it as GPL, what then? All software that is non-GPL that runs on Linux extends the functionality of what the computer can do. How is it "not based on" Linux?

In the same way that WordPress themes require WordPress to run properly, software written for Linux requires Linux to run properly. I do not see any significant difference there. i.e. Is that what "based on" means?

It just sounds like a very radical re-interpretation of the GPL in some very bizarre ways.

One last thing...

Quote

On the basis of that version of WordPress, and considering those themes as if they had been added to WordPress by a third party, it is our opinion that the themes presented, and any that are substantially similar, contain elements that are derivative works of the WordPress software as well as elements that are potentially separate works. Specifically, the CSS files and material contained in the images directory of the â€śdefaultâ€ť theme are works separate from the WordPress code. On the other hand, the PHP and HTML code that is intermingled with and operated on by PHP the code derives from the WordPress code.

In the WordPress themes, CSS files and images exist purely as data to be served by a web server. WordPress itself ignores these files[1]. The CSS and image files are simply read by the server as data and delivered verbatim to the user, avoiding the WordPress instance altogether. The CSS and images could easily be used with a range of HTML documents and read and displayed by a variety of software having no relation to WordPress. As such, these files are separate works from the WordPress code itself.

Now, let me rewrite the last paragraph there in terms of SMF/Joomla...

Quote

In Joomla bridges, the bridged software exists purely as data to be served by a web server. Joomla itself ignores these files. The bridged software files are simply processed by the server as data and delivered to the user, avoiding the Joomla instance altogether. The bridged software could easily be used and read and displayed by a variety of software having no relation to Joomla. As such, these files are separate works from the Joomla code itself.

It's not perfect, but close enough. SMF processes information over there, and Joomla process information over here, and bridge lets them deliver that information to the user at the same time.

The bridge on the other hand, I supposed that would have to be GPL.

I suppose I should instead just be rolling my eyes and shutting up though. It's not going to change anything. I just hope that interpretation of the GPL doesn't get picked up in other places.

Anyways... Just trying to explain in part why I came off as a jackass above. (That and my diet is seriously making me cranky lately, but I'm still losing weight.)

If the bridge is GPL doesn't that then mean that SMF has to be GPL to work with the bridge?...

- Oshyan

Quote

The part "This is a WordPress call:" is GPL as well because it's part of a derivative work. Ooops. This entire post is. Ooops. This entire thread is. Ooops. This entire forum is. Ooops. This entire site is. Ooops. The entire Internet is. Ooops. The entire world is. Ooops... Since I read it, and that knowledge is a part of my being, and I'm now GPL'd myself~! My wife is gonna HATE that~!

That's exactly what I mean. Where does it stop? Simply writing a piece of software between a GPL title and a non-GPL title cannot change the license for the non-GPL title. It's nuts.

In a temporal sense, if you have a time-line like this:

1) A is written (GPL)2) B is written (non-GPL)3) C is written (GPL) and connects A & B

It would be insane to assume that B must change its license because of C. If that were true, all software would be GPL (just about).

It's not that anything must change license, just that the license must be GPL to be distributed legally.

Here's the thing though, as Jfusion proves, it depends on *how* something is written and how it interfaces GPL to non-GPL. It *can* be done legitimately, as Jfusion again shows. I think the key is in how separate it is. For example a Joomla-integrated system that presented a Joomla plugin UI would be using Joomla deeply enough to require being GPL itself. If it then integrates with a non-GPL system, it would simply need to do so in a way that did not A: use that system's API or B: use any proprietary elements of that system besides data. In other words direct data access would be acceptable, i.e. Jfusion directly reading and writing to SMF's SQL database info. I'm not actually sure that's how it works, but that's my understanding of what would be legal.

It's not that anything must change license, just that the license must be GPL to be distributed legally.

Here's the thing that I don't get...

1) I go and get program X (GPL). (e.g. A GPL database.)2) Then I go and get program Y (non-GPL). (e.g. WinAmp)3) *I* write some software to connect the two (license irrelevant at the moment). (A program that processes what the database is doing to create playlists and integrates at a low level - Ok stupid program, but that's besides the point.)

So far this is all fine and dandy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now...

4) I release my plugin/software as GPL. I do not bundle it with the DB or WinAmp.

*MY* software *IS* released under the GPL.

And so?

I don't believe there is any requirement for any software to actually function properly, so whether or not my software works there is irrelevant to the license. You can plug it into the GPL DB fine and all is well for the license.

But, what happens once the software plugs into WinAmp? I didn't do it. The user did it. I've not violated anything. And since the user is not bound to any special usage terms and because the user isn't distributing anything, he's not violating the GPL.

Here's the thing though, as Jfusion proves, it depends on *how* something is written and how it interfaces GPL to non-GPL. It *can* be done legitimately, as Jfusion again shows. I think the key is in how separate it is. For example a Joomla-integrated system that presented a Joomla plugin UI would be using Joomla deeply enough to require being GPL itself. If it then integrates with a non-GPL system, it would simply need to do so in a way that did not A: use that system's API or B: use any proprietary elements of that system besides data. In other words direct data access would be acceptable, i.e. Jfusion directly reading and writing to SMF's SQL database info. I'm not actually sure that's how it works, but that's my understanding of what would be legal.

I should go back and read more on Jfusion. It seems very interesting. I have no idea how they'd do what they claim though.

Oh, I can think of 1 way, but I still don't get the whole licensing thing... (use a provider model then have Joomla/SMF consume the provider)

Honestly this is now getting outside of the range of my own understanding of GPL and licensing law. It *is* complicated stuff, which is unfortunate because it needs to be understood by many "lay" people to really be properly respected. This is part of the problem with the way the GPL is constructed; it asks things of the developer and, in some cases, the user that are not necessarily intuitive. Software use and selection shouldn't be this complicated...